[2022] SGHC 212
General Division of the High Court of Singapore31 Aug 2022District Court Appeal No 20 of 2022
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 1 later decision. No negative treatment detected.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
“e it has pleaded to. If a claimant fails to prove either the fact of damage or the quantum of its loss, typically only nominal damages may be awarded: See Youprint Productions Pte Ltd v Mak Sook Ling [2022] SGHC 212 at [5].”
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
“The District Judge did not award nominal damages to the appellant. Instead, he dismissed the appellant’s claim, relying on LighthouseCarrwood Ltd v Luckett [2007] EWHC 2866 (QB) (“LighthouseCarrwood”) (GD at [18]). In that case, the English High Court struck out a claim for breach of contract for the following reasons”
“The full facts are set out in the District Judge’s Grounds of Decision in Youprint Productions Pte Ltd v Mak Sook Ling [2022] SGDC 131 (the “GD”). Suffice it to say that the appellant sued the respondent (a former employee) in the District Court for breach of her employment contract. The District Judge found that the r”
“The District Judge noted (GD at [18]) that LighthouseCarrwood was recently cited in Phua Seng Hua and others v Kwee Seng Chio Peter and another [2022] SGHC(A) 11 at [46]. However, in that case, the Appellate Division had cited LighthouseCarrwood for the principle that a claim for Wrotham Park damages has to be pleaded.”
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
1
This appeal against the decision of the District Court involves a short point. Where the plaintiff in a claim for breach of contract proves the breach but fails to prove loss or damage, should his claim be dismissed or should it be allowed with nominal damages awarded?
2
The full facts are set out in the District Judge’s Grounds of Decision in Youprint Productions Pte Ltd v Mak Sook Ling [2022] SGDC 131 (the “GD”). Suffice it to say that the appellant sued the respondent (a former employee) in the District Court for breach of her employment contract. The District Judge found that the respondent had breached her employment contract, but the appellant had not proved loss. The District Judge also declined to make an order for an account of profits because it had not been pleaded and, in any event, ordinary compensatory damages were available as a remedy save that the appellant had not adduced sufficient evidence.
3
The District Judge did not award nominal damages to the appellant. Instead, he dismissed the appellant’s claim, relying on LighthouseCarrwood Ltd v Luckett [2007] EWHC 2866 (QB) (“LighthouseCarrwood”) (GD at [18]). In that case, the English High Court struck out a claim for breach of contract for the following reasons (at [84]):
4
The appellant argued that the District Judge was wrong in dismissing its claim outright and that he ought to have allowed the claim and awarded nominal damages instead. The respondent supported the District Judge’s decision, relying on LighthouseCarrwood. I agreed with the appellant. In my view, the District Judge’s decision was wrong as a matter of law.
5
The innocent party is always entitled to claim damages as of right for loss resulting from breach of contract: see RDC Concrete Pte Ltd v Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd and another appeal [2007] 4 SLR(R) 413 at [40]; Denka Advantech Pte Ltd and another v Seraya Energy Pte Ltd and another and other appeals [2021] 1 SLR 631 at [60]. Breaches of contract are actionable without proof of damage, but recovery of substantial damages requires proof of such loss: The Law of Contract in Singapore vol 2 (Andrew Phang Boon Leong gen ed) (Academy Publishing, 2022) at para 20.073. If the claimant fails to prove either the fact of damage or the quantum of its loss, only nominal damages may be awarded: Biofuel Industries Pte Ltd v V8 Environmental Pte Ltd and another appeal [2018] 2 SLR 199 (“Biofuel”) (at [44]).
6
The position is explained in Butterworths Common Law Series: The Law of Damages (Andrew Tettenborn gen ed) (LexisNexis, 2nd Ed, 2010) (“The Law of Damages”) as follows, at paras 2.05–2.07 and 2.09:
7
The District Judge noted (GD at [18]) that LighthouseCarrwood was recently cited in Phua Seng Hua and others v Kwee Seng Chio Peter and another [2022] SGHC(A) 11 at [46]. However, in that case, the Appellate Division had cited LighthouseCarrwood for the principle that a claim for Wrotham Park damages has to be pleaded. The question as to whether a breach of contract is actionable as of right was not in issue in that case and nothing in the Appellate Division’s grounds of decision can be said to have approved the statement in LighthouseCarrwood that was relied on by the District Judge. In my view, in so far as LighthouseCarrwood decided that a claim for breach of contract fails if loss cannot be proved, it was wrong and should not be followed.
8
The respondent also relied on Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd and another [2008] 2 SLR(R) 623 (“Robertson Quay”) and Biofuel.
9
In Biofuel, the Court of Appeal referred to Robertson Quay and stated as follows (at [42]):
10
The respondent submitted that the appellant was not entitled to nominal damages as it had not shown that it had attempted its level best to prove its loss and adduce cogent evidence. I disagreed with the respondent’s submission. The references to the claimant having attempted its level best to prove its loss were made in the context of proof of substantial damages, not nominal damages: see Robertson Quay at [27] and Biofuel at [40].
Costs
I would add that where the trial is not bifurcated and the claimant succeeds in proving breach of contract but recovers only nominal damages because it fails to prove loss, generally, the claimant ought to be awarded costs. The quantum of costs may, of course, take into account the fact that the claimant has failed to prove loss. On the other hand, where the trial is bifurcated and the claimant fails to prove loss during the hearing for the assessment of damages, the claimant would generally either recover no costs or be ordered to pay the costs of the assessment. This is because at the assessment hearing, the only issue is the quantum of loss and a claimant who merely receives nominal damages has effectively lost: The Law of Damages at para 2.15.
Costs
In the present case, the appellant confirmed that it was not seeking costs of the trial below but submitted that it should be awarded costs of the appeal. The respondent pointed out that it had made an offer to settle before the hearing of this appeal. The terms of the offer to settle were more favourable to the appellant than my decision in this appeal. However, the respondent submitted that there should be no order as to costs in respect of this appeal. In the circumstances, I made no order as to costs in respect of this appeal.
Costs
In conclusion, I allowed the appeal, set aside the District Judge’s order dismissing the appellant’s claim and awarded the appellant nominal damages fixed at $1,500. Finally, I made no order as to costs of this appeal.
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.